While there is some overlap between a 14-24/2.8 and an 11-24/4, there is really very little overlap between the 16-35/4 IS and the 11-24/4. I own a 16-35/4 and have the 11-24/4 on order. Besides the obvious point that they have different focal ranges, there is the following to consider.

- The 16-35/4 can take front filters - meaning polarizers. The 11-24/4 only takes gels - so your're limited to ND filters- IS on the 16-35/4 allows one to take shots near 1/2s - meaning situations not generally possible with something else- The 16-35/4 does a decent job with infrared. I am not sure about the 11-24/4, but I will not know for some time because all of my IR is currently done with a filter.- The 16-35/4 is a much smaller lens- While both are weather proof, with the 16-35 you do not need to worry about the protruding front element

Those are some of the reasons I'm thinking about keeping the 16-35 f/4 IS, and I'll add that I find the 16-35mm range very useful. Stopping at 24mm means changing lenses, whereas 24-35 covers a lot of additional shooting. The polarizer argument is less important to me as most of my shots include the sky, but if you shoot a lot of wet rocks and such, it's a good one. My thing is that I have a ridiculous number of wide lenses already and I'm certainly not a collector - so it's more than I need or could use regularly. It's also a lot of money tied up that could be used to pay for the 11-24 outright.

I am in a similar boat. I will now have the following WA lenses - 16-35/4, 24-70/2.8 II, TS-E 24 II, TS-E 17, 8-15 fisheye, and 11-24/4. The problem is each has its own niche, so I have no plans to get rid of any of them.

You can do what you are looking to do, but I do not believe a 100mm macro will give you the magnification you need. You need to attach a microscope objective to your camera. Due to the magnification from the sensor + crop, I do not believe you need a 50x objective. The following equipment should get you very close.

Canon 7D2 - Most objectives will vignette heavily at FF anyways and the camera will outresolve the objective. The 5DS would be a complete waste. The 7D2 will do the job.Nikon 10x 10.5 WD Plan Achromat - You can find these for ~$250 and they should provide the magnification you need.Canon 200/2.8 II - This is the prime, not the zoom. It is the only Canon lens I know of that does not require extensions to get the full frame of view when attached to the objective.Adapters and step down tubes to go from the 200/2.8 to the objective

Finally you'll need something to raise and lower the camera in very small increments. It sounds like you already have an idea here, but a Stackshot may also be useful.

While there is some overlap between a 14-24/2.8 and an 11-24/4, there is really very little overlap between the 16-35/4 IS and the 11-24/4. I own a 16-35/4 and have the 11-24/4 on order. Besides the obvious point that they have different focal ranges, there is the following to consider.

- The 16-35/4 can take front filters - meaning polarizers. The 11-24/4 only takes gels - so your're limited to ND filters- IS on the 16-35/4 allows one to take shots near 1/2s - meaning situations not generally possible with something else- The 16-35/4 does a decent job with infrared. I am not sure about the 11-24/4, but I will not know for some time because all of my IR is currently done with a filter.- The 16-35/4 is a much smaller lens- While both are weather proof, with the 16-35 you do not need to worry about the protruding front element

Perhaps a combination Macro with builtin step motor to allow focus stacking. Hard to imagine how they would do this in the lens alone but perhaps Canon is referring to some sort of accessory along with the lens?

Could this be more easily implemented in software in camera as opposed to in the lens?

That would be a cool capability if Canon could have automated focus stacking as an option with all their lenses.

I wonder how difficult it would be to program?

Automated focus stacking already exists. There is a device called StackShot (I own one) that makes this easy. For all practical purposes you can't do this in the lens because any extension of the lens changes the magnification. You need to move the entire camera - which is what StackShot does.

A 90mm TS-E lens with greater magnification has been rumored for sometime, but it would not count as a unique macro. Nikon's PC-E 85 already is .5x. I suppose it is possible to increase the magnification beyond that, but I am not sure the need is there.

Canon could release an update to the MP-E 65, but I doubt that. The current copy is still extremely good and Canon has absolutely no competition in this space.

Another possibility is a low aperture macro. The lowest one I am aware of is the Zeiss 100/2. Still, low aperture in macro if mainly for very abstract photography. I do not believe there would be a huge need.

Finally, Canon could create a >200mm macro lens. A 300/4 macro lens would be intriguing, but I question the market need. Already the 180mm is a niche lens - suited for specific types of flowers and insects. For many uses the 180mm is too long.

Note that I currently own the 100/2.8 IS, MP-E 65, TS-E 90 and have owned the 180, so I would likely be a prime customer for any new macro. That being said, I suspect this rumor is untrue. I know Canon has patents for new macros and may have a prototype or two out there, but I do not believe the market is large enough to actually release something. Most likely Canon will update the TS-E 90 and the 180 (IMHO the poorest resolving of the macros) within the next few years, but their more innovative lenses will be in the more widely used lenses.

Regardless I won't be able to purchase this until the end of the year, but for me the choice will ultimately revolve around flare. I have a relatively full line of wide angle lenses - TS-E 17, TS-E 24 II, 16-35/4 IS, and 8-15 fisheye. Certainly the extra wide view will be intriguing to me, but flare handling will make the difference between whether I buy this at list price, or whether I wait for some time and buy a used copy on sale.

I love taking pictures that contain the sun, but due to flare problems the TS-E 17 is not well suited to the task. The 16-35/4 does a better job - but it too has issues. For $3k my hope is they can produce a lens that does extremely well for flare - but that will be a big challenge given the width.

I will probably buy the 5DsR but I need confirmation on the dynamic range first. For this type of camera I am looking for DR - not high ISO. The fact that it has max native ISO 6400 (vs 16000 for the 7D2 which has a similarly dense sensor) tells me that it does not use the same sensor as the 7D2 - which is good.

My hope is they are doing something similar to the MF manufacturers by sacrificing high ISO for very good dynamic range. For me to bite though it would probably have to exceed what Nikon/Sony have, but this may be possible.

In terms of having the filter removed, there is more involved than just removing the filter. Do a search on D800 vs D800E for details. Since I would use it primarily for nature images and skylines, I do not believe moire will be an issue and I will definitely want the sharpness improvement.

I went to Iceland this summer in July and had with me a 5D3 + 6D. First, you can forget about astrophotography at this time of year. It basically never gets dark.

In terms of lenses I brought + used the following:70-200/2.8 II - General purpose, but came most handy when photographing from an aerial tourTS-E 17 - Very useful for landscapesTS-E 24 II - My most used landscape lens16-35/2.8 II - (have since moved to a 16-35/4) - Very hand when dogsledding + glacier hiking because I did not have a lot of time to get the shot.8-15 fisheye - Nice as long as it is not overused200-400/1.4x - July is great for wildlife in Iceland. There are tons of birds + arctic fox and seals

I most want to see this killer sensor we keep hearing rumors about. I expect the camera to have significantly better dynamic range and also better high ISO image quality. I most want to see ISO 6400 and maybe ISO 12800 be usable for prints.

In terms of resolution, a touch more would be nice, but I really do not need more than 24 MP. I far prefer any improvement in DR and high ISO than MP.

I expect that they'll add the ergonomic improvements recently introduced in the 7D2, though I do not expect it to match the 7D2 in fps.

I do strongly believe that if Canon repeats what they did with the 7D2 (put essentially a 5 year old sensor in a revamped body) that it will not be tolerated with a more premium camera like the 5D4.

Checked his portfolio... he is not even a sports, wildlife, or, especially, bird photographer!!!

Yet, he speaks with massive authority on all things. Likely, we should go to him for dating advice as well, and also information about how and when to plant our crops.

I quote Russian Proverb: Ocean is knee deep to him.

Who is this person? Someone we should quickly forget, as there is nothing memorable about him.

You are correct that he does not photograph wildlife, but he does photograph sports. He has photographed Formula 1 for some time and has had his photos of it published. He also photographed the winter Olympics in Vancouver.

Although Ron has reduced time on his blog so I suspect this is no longer true, at one time his blog was among the top ten photography sites in traffic. His photos have been published in numerous magazines and he often gives workshops. While even he will admit that there are many photographers out there more talented than he is, he certainly has more credibility than you.

I happen to be friends with Ron and have worked with him for some time. While I do not always agree with his reviews, he's pretty straight up. One thing is he has always stated what he thought about products - even when it wound up pissing off his sponsors. Keep in mind that the majority of big review sites out there have to temper their disappointments in order to not suffer financially.

In terms of his review on the 7D2, I happen to agree with it. \

so you recommend that someone who is not using the 7D MK II for wildlife or sports buy a D4s? A D4s won't do sports or wildlife? What is he on??

From his review I gather that he is recommending the 1D4 over the 7D2. As a primary camera this makes sense. Personally this is one area where I do not agree. I find a 5D3 + 7D2 to be a better combination.

In terms of the D4s I know he loves this camera because he found the AF to be superior to the 1Dx in his review. That being said he is a Canon shooter. This is one area where I do not entirely agree with him. Personally for wildlife I cannot justify the price difference of the 1Dx over the 5D3.

I happen to be friends with Ron and have worked with him for some time. While I do not always agree with his reviews, he's pretty straight up. One thing is he has always stated what he thought about products - even when it wound up pissing off his sponsors. Keep in mind that the majority of big review sites out there have to temper their disappointments in order to not suffer financially.

In terms of his review on the 7D2, I happen to agree with it. I have owned a 7D and currently own a 7D2, 5D3, and 6D. Initially upon receiving my 7D2 I was so disappointed that I posted that I would send it back. I wound up not doing that. Instead I only take it out of my bag when the light is good enough that I can comfortably shoot at ISO 800 or below.

You can argue that neither I nor Ron should expect much from a cropped sensor, but at least in my case I was hoping for more. Sony and Samsung have proven that this is possible, and at least sensor-wise the 7D2 accomplishes very little over the 7D. In fact, Ron's comparison comment was mine - except my original statement was "sure, the 7D2 has better image quality than the 7D, but that's kind of like saying that diarrhea is better than the stomach flu".

Should you buy a 7D2 if you already have a 7D? That really depends on how you intend to use it. The camera does have much better ergonomics and the AF is very good. I use it only for wildlife and only on my 200-400/1.4x and only in good light. In those cases it does its job, but I have a 5D3 and 6D to fall back on for the majority of days here in the Pacific Northwest.

On the other hand, if this is your primary camera then my recommendation would be to stick with your 7D (or even 70D) and save for a full frame camera in the future.

I sold my 16-35/2.8 II recently and picked up this lens. It is a great lens and an amazing buy for the price. The main reasons I bought it were the image stabilization and better IR handling. So far it has proved worthy in both areas.

I am no crop camera apologist, but to me the differences are small, couple that with the fact that the 7D MkII shot light is flatter, either a few minutes later or on a more shady part of the water, and if they are both close to 100% then you are enlarging the 7D MkII image nearly twice as much, makes me think you might not be comparing this as evenly as you think.

Yeah...I clicked all the way through to Flickr to make sure I was viewing the original size, flipped between the browser tabs a couple times...and had to come back here to read which was 5D3 and which was 7D2.

I say it all the time even though it offends people and makes me a pariah, but if you expect A to be better then B you will believe it is better and rationalize that it is better even when someone has flipped the labels and you are actually praising B! This is seen in wine tasting, audio equipment testing, photo print comparisons.... Double blind the test and people often can't tell the two apart where they previously thought the difference was huge...JUST HUGE!

That said, I would not normally recommend a 5D3 owner get a 7D2 for extra reach. Too much is made of the difference. You have to be cropping much further then APS-C...and then printing large...to observe the reach advantage of a crop sensor. It comes into play when you're left with 8 MP from the crop sensor, and <3 MP from the FF, and you need to print 16x24. And if you run into that situation it is significant. You can pick it out in a double blind test. But honestly ask yourself how often you run into that situation? If it's very often you might be better served by a new lens any way.

Sorry to disagree but it's not just about reach. Setting aside the debate about the smaller sensor and the effect that has on image quality, pro's and con's, my 5D3 feels like a lumbering dinosaur after shooting with the 7D2 for two weeks. It really is that much more responsive. I can see how people get hooked on those 1 series bodies. If you are shooting with a 1DX or 1D4 than it's hard to make the pro 7D2 argument. But the AF and 10/fps are alone worthy of adding this camera to a 6D or 5D3 if you are shooting moving subjects.

In my experience I really did not see that. Yes, the AF of the 7D2 is a bit quicker and the frame rate is higher, but I did not feel it really blew my 5D3 away. The AF of the 5D3 has never really prevented me from getting the shot, but I did find that the 7D2 marginally increased the rate of keepers.

The primary improvement I saw in the 7D2 was the customizability. I really liked being able to set different AF modes to different buttons. I also felt that the silent shutter was even better.